memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha talk:Naming conventions
Qualifiers Moved from Memory Alpha talk:Manual of Style We need a common way of naming shuttle articles. Currently, we have a mix of Shuttlecraft X, X (shuttlecraft) and simply X'''. Most links favor the simple '''X, (such as Copernicus). I strongly agree with that option. This means that Galileo (shuttlecraft) should be moved to Galileo (2267), unless there are other Galileos and we need a disamb page. A related question is what to put in parenthesis. Do we have to differentiate between (shuttlepod) and (shuttlecraft) and possibly more types? Or do we use one term? -- Harry 14:18, 29 Dec 2004 (CET) :I agree, qualifiers should generally only be used to disambiguate between articles with the otherwise same name. For searching purposes (among other reasons), article names such as "Shuttlecraft X" (or "Captain Y", ...) should be avoided at all costs... -- Cid Highwind 15:26, 2004 Dec 29 (CET) Shuttles I suggest we use links that are more like the ones used at wikipedia. Currently, I believe we have a link called 'Galileo'. I believe it should be 'Shuttlecraft Galileo'. In case of ambiguity, we might use "Enterprise shuttlecraft Galileo". In case of an unnamed shuttle, we could use 'Enterprise shuttlecraft 2'. The only slight problem with this system are the multiple Enterprises. We may need to resort to the informal 'Enterprise-A' form, or somehow include the registry. But any way, I think 'Galileo' is not a sufficient title. - Harry 18:46, 25 Sep 2004 (CEST) :Never mind that. I don't what I was thinking a few months ago. -- Harry 19:10, 31 Dec 2004 (CET) Capitalization Moved from Talk:Sol System Just a minor nitpick, but something that doesn't sit right with me. Whis is it "Sol System", and not just "Sol system". I know it's pedantic, but the URLs are case-sensitive, so it does matter a bit. I don't think there is any reason for it to be "Sol System", or "Bajor System", or "Whatever System". The word 'system' is not part of the name, but a regular noun... (It's basically the same as with the capitalized Centuries.. that doesn't make any sense either, but it's a bit too late to change all those :)) -- Harry 13:31, 16 Jan 2004 (PST) :Guilty, your honor. ;) :I guess I created most of these articles - I didn't put too much thought into the capitalization, but I think I simply see "Xyz System" as a proper name, not just the "Xyz" bit. However, that's just personal preference and I can see that this creates some problems while linking to these articles so the small case "system" should be used instead... -- Cid Highwind 14:21, 16 Jan 2004 (PST) Titling articles question, re: "Sector" Recently my "Mutara Sector" article was changed to "Mutara sector." Now I know that, say, "Ceti Alpha system" is the proper format, rather than "Ceti Alpha System," but does the same go for sectors? None of the other sectors on List of sectors have "sector" in lowercase. Not complaining here or anything, just trying to discover the right format so I don't mess up again. Steve 23:01, 3 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I think this is a question that has no definite answer yet. According to our Naming_conventions, lowercase should be used unless the title of an article (or specific part thereof) is a proper noun - which leaves us with another question: Is Mutara Sector a proper noun, or not? Perhaps this one is, but the Haradan sector is not? I guess we should just define one version to be the 'correct' one for our purposes (let's just vote here, perhaps?), and always create a redirect at the other spelling... -- Cid Highwind 23:36, 3 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Lower-case for system makes sense to me, since it's usually just the star name with a "system" attached (except for exceptions like Bajoran system), so just the star name's the proper noun. But in the case of a sector, the whole thing often feels like a proper noun, seemingly not named after anything: Rhomboid Dronegar Sector, anyone? I'd prefer sector names to be caps. Steve 20:12, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Even with sectors that are uniquely named like Rhomboid Dronegar sector, the Rhomboid Dronegar should be considered the proper noun, and sector is a descriptor. I support the standard for being "Blank sector" "Blank system" etc. --Captainmike 20:58, 4 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I would use System myself, but that is just because I tend to use caps for almost all words. But I quite agree that system is not part of the noun and should therefor be typed lower-case. -- Redge 22:37, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) Proper nouns There has recently been, and still is (me included), some confusion about what exactly a proper noun is. From Wikipedia:Noun: :Proper nouns (also called proper names) are names and denote unique entities. The meaning of a proper noun, outside of what it references, is frequently arbitrary or irrelevant (for example, someone might be named Tiger Smith despite being neither a tiger nor a smith). With that in mind, do we have to rethink the "inofficial" capitalization rules in use here? Regarding the above discussion, isn't "Sol Sector" the name of the unique entity consisting of a defined area of space surrounding the star Sol and should, as such, be capitalized? Or is "sector", as Mike put it, just a descriptor which should not be capitalized? What about "Surplus Depot Z15", "Star Station India" and similar? Are those the names of these entities, or are "star station" and "surplus depot" descriptors added to the name part ("Z15", "India"), too? -- Cid Highwind 12:41, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) Game titles I hope we can reach a consensus about how to name game articles and add that to the naming conventions page, so we can start fixing the game names accordingly. Shanok 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Complete vs. short names I don't see a policy regarding game titles. There are several games whose actual titles are "Star Trek: The Next Generation - Something" (for instance); yet they're also commonly referred to as only "Star Trek - Something". What should their article names in Memory Alpha be? Shanok 04:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC) :My take on this is to use the complete name of the game, as displayed in the box or cover, for the name of the article. Whenever other common ways people refer to the game (e.g. "Star Trek: Something" or simply "Something") exist, there should be a redirect to the main article. Shanok 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Sub-title separators I'm still not sure about which separator character to use when there is a three or more hierarchy of titles, as is common practice in Star Trek games. Wikipedia uses ":" for every level of hierarchy, while MobyGames uses ":" for the first level and "-" for the second level. Example of each use for the same title: * Star Trek: The Next Generation: A Final Unity (as in Wikipedia) * Star Trek: The Next Generation - A Final Unity (as in MobyGames) All precedents in Memory-Alpha are for the MobyGames-type of usage, so I'm all for using that form as a policy of naming conventions. Shanok 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC) DS9 episodes Why are all the DS9 episodes being moved to Episode Name (episode) even where there's no disambiguation? That seems to go against this page. - SanityOrMadness 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC) :This is way late, but see here. -- sulfur 12:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Update needed This page needs an update, as some of the things mentioned are no longer correct. The entire article could be reworded to make things clearer as well. Unless anyone objects, I'll clean this up soon. - 08:07, July 11, 2010 (UTC) Full name vs. common name There is currently a conflict between the guidelines and how we name articles. The guideline says we should use the most common name, but this would suggest that James T. Kirk should be at Jim Kirk, William T. Riker should be at Will Riker, William J. Clinton should be at Bill Clinton, and so on. I think this this would be undesirable in most cases. Setting aside the whole issue of middle names/middle initials for now, I think we should be using full names as they are more encyclopedic. We loose nothing by using redirects for the common name, as we already do, and the only reason I can think for using the more common name in most instances is that there seems to be an aversion to using redirects. To this end, I'm suggesting the following changes to the guidelines: * Use the most encyclopedic name. Generally, the most encyclopedic name for an article is the most complete and commonly used name. ** Be precise. Ambiguously-named articles will likely create confusion for readers. (See also: Disambiguation) ** Use spelled-out phrases, not acronyms. Well-known acronyms can use a redirect for easy linking, like NASA or LCARS. ** Use redirects. Use redirects for any other names or commonly used shorter names for the subject. (Example: Quark's redirects to Quark's Bar, Grill, Gaming House and Holosuite Arcade) I think replacing the relevant text with this reflects the rational that seems to be used when naming articles without removing what I assume was the reasoning for suggesting we use the most common name in the first place, namely that we should be using the most commonly used name for things when there are multiple "encyclopedic" names for something. - 22:03, January 4, 2014 (UTC) :I don't mind any of this as long as the 'generally' is maintained, as there are always exceptions. I still think Clinton should be one as he is close to universally called that in normal conversation(not to refight battles, just an example). 31dot (talk) 00:15, January 5, 2014 (UTC) Unknown name in canon, known name in real life Can we assume that a character not mentioned by name but referenced indirectly has the same name in canon? See Talk:Klaatu for my reason for asking this and Hubert Hawkins for an example where it was done. I think there's a place where this is definitively stated, but don't know where. --LauraCC (talk) 17:51, March 29, 2016 (UTC) :You're looking for the precedent set by the deletion discussion for Douglas MacArthur. The "MacArthur clause" only applies if the assumption of similarity between the real world and the Star Trek universe is supported with enough content to make the leap reasonable. - 03:19, March 30, 2016 (UTC) Well, for starters: * I would argue that The Day the Earth Stood Still was released in 1951, well before the Trek universe appears to diverge noticeably from ours (I speak specifically of the Eugenics Wars and afterwards.) * Second, the character in that discussion is referred to as an android by Charles, which it was in the film. * Third, in The Court Jester, whose characters I have given as examples of where this was done (not referred to by name onscreen), footage of the film shows in canon a scene which is identical (being taken from actual film footage) to its counterpart in our universe. The Day the Earth Stood Still is seen and spoken of, but not the scenes where the android Gort appears. * Fourth, unlike MacArthur, these are fictional characters. --LauraCC (talk) 16:16, March 30, 2016 (UTC) :Apparently my phone changed context to content on me in my last reply, which changes the meaning there. What I was trying to say was there needs to be enough context to make the assumption reasonable. In this case, the film under discussion is identified and there is only one character the android could be, so the jump is reasonable. If the film wasn't known, it would be different. - 18:39, March 30, 2016 (UTC) Ah. Fascinating. ;) I'll make the page then. --LauraCC (talk) 18:42, March 30, 2016 (UTC)